Section 271D judiciary-2

Section 269SS not applicable to transactions between relatives

Snehalata Sitani Vs JCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

Where the loans were taken by assessee in cash from his relatives, the transactions between relatives were not in the nature of loans or deposits as envisaged in section 269SS and the penalty imposed under section 271D was accordingly cancelled....

Read More

No Penalty for Cash loan received from father for reasonable cause

Ashok Kumar Bagaria Vs JCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

Since assessee had given reasonable cause for availing loan in cash from his father within the meaning of section 271D, therefore, he would be out of the rigours of levy of penalty under section 271D and no penalty could be levied....

Read More

Cash loan from father-in-law- ITAT deletes Section 271D Penalty

Shri Sanmathi Ambanna Vs JCIT (ITAT Bangalore)

Shri Sanmathi Ambanna Vs JCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In penalty proceedings, the assessee, inter alia, submitted that the transactions in question cannot be strictly construed as loan but rather are in the nature of gifts from his father-in-law Shri. G. P. Padmakumar because of the fact that the person giving the money and the person accepting ...

Read More

No penalty on cash loan from Parents and Brother for buying House for Family

Sonia Malik Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi)

In the instant case, has received cash loan from her parents and brother to meet the stamp duty cost for purchase of a house property for her own living, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act and the provisions of section 273B will come to the rescue of the assessee as ...

Read More

No penalty u/s 271D for advance received from promoters in cash through Current A/cs

M/s. Space N Place Promoters P. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (ITAT Chennai)

 Penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed on assessee for advances against sale of flats and cash receipts received from the promoters through their respective current accounts as nothing had been brought on record by Revenue to show that the receipts were superfluous in nature and not for the business of assessee....

Read More

ITAT deletes penalty on Cash loan taken from unorganized finance sector to repay lenders

M/s. P.R. Associates Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune)

M/s. P.R. Associates Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) We find that the assessee specifically submitted before the AO during the course of penalty proceedings, which fact has also been captured in the penalty order, that its business was inoperative for the last 7 years and it had already borrowed loans from Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. […]...

Read More

Levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E in case of non-genuineness of transactions between director and assessee-company

M/s. Vasan Healthcare P Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (Madras High Court)

Penalty u/s 271D and 271 E was leviable as there was absolutely no genuinity or bonafideness in the transaction done between the promoter/ director and assessee- company....

Read More

Cash Loan- Penalty justified on failure to establish Business exigency or urgency 

M. Sougoumarin Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)

M. Sougoumarin Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) High Court held that there was no such reason for regular loan transactions of borrowing and repayment in cash of amounts exceeding Rs.20,000/- so as to escape penal liability under Sections 271E and 271D of the IT Act. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT These […]...

Read More

Penalty order u/s 271D & 271E would reckon from date when SCN was issued by AO

Income Tax Officer Vs Shri Prashant Sharma (ITAT Jaipur)

Penalty order u/s 271D and 271E would reckon from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the AO and not from the date when the show cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner who is competent to pass the penalty orders....

Read More

Capital contribution by partner in cash- No violation of section 269SS

ITO Vs Dayamayee Marble & Granite (ITAT kolkata)

Where assessee received capital from the partner in cash, it did not tentamount to loan or deposit and therefore, penalty under section 271D was not to be levied for violation of section 269SS....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,438)
Company Law (5,279)
Custom Duty (7,558)
DGFT (4,090)
Excise Duty (4,317)
Fema / RBI (3,944)
Finance (4,105)
Income Tax (31,600)
SEBI (3,295)
Service Tax (3,506)

Search Posts by Date

January 2020
« Dec